Where the word of a King, &c.

IT is well wee finde in Scipture terminis terminentibus, or else wee might have lost him. Ego dixi dij estis, there might be some evasions hence, there is mention of Judges and under-Magistrates in the Land Psalme 82.6. they might assume this unquestioned power and question those whom we call Kings. Saint Paul he names some in authority, but the Pope may come in for his supre­macie. In the latter time there are Calvins, Magistratus, Popu­lares, Beza's, superiores potestates, Brutus, Iunius optimates regni, Daneus ordines regni, Buchanus publica administrationis participes. Althasius, Ephori, Paraus inferiores potestates, so many names as head of the beast in the Apocalip. But here wee have Melecke a King, be not subject to subjects or inferiour Magistrates, but sub­jecti estote regi tanquam supereminenti, 1 Pet. 2.13.

Whence and what Kings are, are doctrines I thinke sutable both to this Text and these times, their originall is from God a good beginning. Per me reges regnant [...] saith Saint Chrysostome. The ancient forme of salutation used by the Bishop of Rome was In eo per quem reges regnant, then was it not his owne holinesse Rex regum is written upon Christ owne thigh Apoc. 19.16. and Melchisedeck his owne first type and King was [...], without father or Mother. Kings are not the off­spring of man but the generation of God, Ego dixi Dij estis. God help Kings if people undertake to make them, if they may turne Gods verse, to nos diximus Dij estis; if they may change Christs words, from thou shouldest have no power over mee unlesse it were given thee from above, to, thou shouldst have no power over me unlesse it were granted thee de subter, from beneath. No all Kings and King­domes are Gods. Cujus jussu nascunter homines, ejus jussu Con­stituuntur Principes, Iraen: Inde suis potestas unde spiritus. Tert. Even all their ornaments and imperiall ensignes are from God. [Page 3] Diadomae regis in manu dei, Esay 62. His their Crowne, Tuposuisti, Psalme 21. Hee puts it on. The Emperours stampe on their Coines was a hand comming forth out of the Clouds holding a Crowne, putting it on their heads. His is their Scepter, Virga dei in manibus ejus, His their Throne, Reges in solie coll [...]cat in perpetuum, saith Iob. He fastens them in it for ever; His also their annointing, Touch not mine Annointed, I have annointed David my servant, annointed with oyle for supremacie and continuance in his Throne, not uncti. as Priests, but Christi Domini, saith the Bishop of Winchester thir­tie three times, so stiled in the Old Testament, and once in the New. Their manner of annointing also was diverse from the Priests. They were annointed on the forehead, Kings on the head saith Erotius in his annotations to Cassenders consultations, in a word saith Saint August. they are uncti ante unctionem, before we can touch them. v. e. decreto.

Kings whether good or bad they are from God, Per me Reges regnant was spoken when there was but one good King upon the face of the earth Solomon. Haec dicit Dominus Cyro uncto meo. He a Persian a Heathen. It repented God of what? that he had made Saul King. Ego dedi vobis in ira mea regem, Hos. 13.11. Angry I was when I gave you, I gave him through, and there in that honour he must remains though he become Onus Populi, an heavie burthen upon the necke of all his subjects. Nebuchadnezar who slew and kept alive whom he pleased, I gave him, His Majesty, Dan. 9. I have raised up Pharaoh and placed him in his Throne, to make my power knowne on him who had deserved it, that is one sence whatsoever is the o­ther. And the Holy Ghost in Scripture stiles not only David and Salomon Kings, but takes in the rest: Hiram, and Pharaoh, and Hadad, and where the Scripture doth not distinguish neither may wee, be their religion or manners what please them, by God they are made, and may not bee marrd by the people—In nature every thing is dissolved by the same meanes it came together, in Law institution, and destitution belong to one: in Divinity also the Prophet in one and the same verse saith, Ego dedi vobis regem, in the former, and in one breath, abstuli eum, in the latter, Dominus dedit & Dominus abstulit, and then, and not till then, the people to say benedictum sit nomen dei. And well it is that God hath placed [Page 4] them so neere himselfe, post Deum primus secundum Deum proxi­mi, Tert. Humani Ioves Plant: the subiect then may not come so neere him as Nathan, to tell him tu es homo without Nathans Commission, but tu es Rex, tu es Deus Terra, a God on earth, so neare and so one are Kings with God, that the accusation of Na­both, whereby the story he spake nothing of God, but of the King, they bring in the verdict. Naboth, Maledixi: Deo & Regi, as if hee could not bu blaspheme God that spake ill of his King, though of Ahab Nequissimus regum. They are much mistaken who think that God was offended with the Jewes for chosing royall govern­ment in opposition to the jud [...]ciall or the Shawhedrim established by God under Moses, for Royall government hath beene most an­cient and universall in the world, in the Law of nature, before the Ta [...]les. Saint Chrisostome saith therefore, Eve was taken out of man, not out of the earth, that mankinde might acknowledge one head, one Superiour, one King, and Sir Wal. Raleigh in his second book of the Hist. of the world, Royall Government from Paternall, which indeed are or ought to bee both in one effect, and so we reade of Abraham the Patrarch is termed a Prince, Genesis 23.6. And David the KING is named a Patriarch, let mee speake boldly to you of David the Patriarch: jus regum comes from, jus paternum, both have one commandement, Ho­nour thy Father, as God alone rules the whole world, and as the Sunne gives light to all creatures, so the people of one Land doe most naturally yeeld obedience to one head, one King. All Nati­ons were first governed by this forme, Assyrians, Gresians, Aegyptians, Iewes, Percians, Scythians, Turkes, Tartares, English, French, Spaniards, Poles, Danes, and in the Iudges; Neither doth sacred Scripture make mention of other Rulers then Kings. He that will know more in so cleere a case, may if he please read Plato, Hero­dotus, Zen [...]phon, Saint Cyprian, Saint Ierome. Soveraignty in one person, is most naturall, most reasonable, most honourable, most ne­cessary, most divine; So that God was not angry at the choyce of the kinde of government, but that he thereby was cast forth from being King of the Iewes, whom hee in the place of a King had governed for above three hundred and fiftie yeares, for neither Moses nor the Sawhedrim nor any Judge in Israel had in them­selves, [Page 5] jus imperatorium the Right of a King, but onely jus hor­tatorium & punitivum, if they transgressed the written Law of God. God only was their King, who faine would still (besides the generall protection of the world) have ruled as an earthly King among the rest, and a patterne to them: but they would no longer live by faith and expectation of his wonted direction in go­vernment and deliverance, but rather to be as the Nations round about them, they chose a man and refused the living GOD, Hee is ejected from his immediate Royalty. This the ground of Gods displeasure at the Iewes for choosing them a KING. Ancient and universall hath beene the government of the world by Kings. Saint Ierom [...] in one of his Epistles, saith that two Governours in a Common-wealth are like Esau and Iacob, two Princes in the wombe of Rebecca so they in one Kingdome, rend and teare in peeces: Rome would not endure two brothers, In navi unus guberrator in Ecclesia unus Episcopus, in Domo unus Dominus, in exercitu unum signum, in imperio unus imperator. The onely way to recover and preserve unity and peace among us, is one King. This for the Originall and antiquitie of Kings whence they are and when.

Now secondly, what they are, which is best knowne by that whereby they are formaliter, or finaliter tales, their power: Where the Word of a King is, there is power, &c. Salomon the wi­sest of men as well as Kings, Proverbs 8.15. placeth Kings be­fore the Creation of the world, better not to bee at all then un­der no Governement, which is none without power, and that power if to any purpose must bee such, as with which no earthly power may contest, the owner of it, is evermore Alkum one against whom there ought to bee no rising, nor any rebellion at all.

Darius his three servants in Esdras wrote their wise sen­tences.

1. Forte est vinum.

2. Fortis est Rex.

3. Fortiores surt mulieres; sed supra omnia est veritas. I am somewhat afeard it was a Prophesie, they are indeed at this day, stronger then our Darius. Their fond Pharasaicall, and seditious [Page 6] religions are as ridiculous and as changeable as their fashions and at­tires, their ungrounded zeales, their nourishing and feeding of the vulgar and rebellious of the Clergie, those illiterate talkers in the Pulpit will, nisi supra omnia sit veritas, if the God of truth doe not speedily offend, be stronger then either King or Church David although a man of valour and pietie, yet complaines he that the sonnes of Zervia were to hard for him. But our Kings and Church may both complaine of the daughters of this Land. That they are and will be to hard for us, nisi supra omnia veritas, unlesse God support the integrity of our King, and the sincerity of the Protestant Religion. A more pregnant place for the power of Kings is in Wisdome 26 2. speaking of the extreme vengeance which God will bring upon the heads of evill Kings at the last day, he proves the certainty thereof by an argument which will seeme very strange in these rebellious dayes: Quoniam Dominus non ve­vebitur faciem cujusque, unto you O Kings doe I speake, hee is not afraid of the persons of Kings, hee dares call them to account: A very vaine idle argument to prove his unmastered deity, and power in that he is not afraid of Kings. Who is afraid of them? Doth God indeed say, Ego dixi Dij estis? Wee can take up the next verse and be even with him, he shall fall when we please) like one of the Princes. No such great matter of feare is the person or power of a King now a dayes, when every poore ignorant pesant, or shop-man can define, confine, and pinch up the prerogative of the King, when the vulgar Clergie, those Gibeanites, not fit to draw water for learned men, can pricke and gird the person of the King for the space of three or foure houres. When every petty but in­solent Towne can neglect, if not contemne his presence when be vouchsafes to come and see us. So that if God will prove his secu­ritie to us, hee must quit the old argument of feare due unto Kings, from all but himselfe, and fetch one sutable to our late religions and governments in Church and Common-Wealth; As that he is not afraid of the Popes holinesse, or of a presbysteriall discipline, or a popular discipline. Thus Scripture and reason the arguments of the wise must bee turned to and fro, to follow the unconstant humour of this present world. But we in feare of God, and ho­nour of his King, will lay the ground of our allegiance fast, and [Page 7] such as whereupon wee may build up a peece of obedience that may procure us a Crowne of immortality at the last day, by Saint Gregories rule, arcessemus Rivum fidelitatis de fonte pietatis, not only from customes and fundamentall lawes in a private land, who are most-what both imperfect and obscure, but from the plaine and easie Text of Gods owne Law, which as it is sufficient for any mans salvation, without the blasphemous expositions of these times. So in the point of obedience unto Kings (a maine principle in Christian doctrine) without which no man shall enter into the King­dome of heaven) it is very plentifull and plaine among the rest, this is one, Where the word of a King is, there is power.

The word of a King.

IT is as the roaring of a Lion. It is Divalis jussio, say the coun­cells, Eloquium divinum est in ore regis, saith Salomon and Bar­clay cites, three fundamentall lawes in Scotland, in honour of the word of a KING. Si quis in alterius quam regis verba jurave­rit capitale esto. Si quis in jussu regis (without his word) homi­nes in armis habuerit, morte crimen, expiatur. Solius Regis nomine jus onme redditur, conventus judicatur, concilia convocanter. But I chose rather to apply my selfe to Gods Word, and then will prove the power of the word of a King.

There are two powers of Kings plaine in two places of Gods Word, the first is Potestas. What hee may and ought to doe in equitie, That is set downe, In capite volum, Deut. 17. The second is Potentia jus impunitatis, what he may doe, and yet may not be questioned by his subjects for so doing. This is in, 1 Sam. 8.12. and to the 19. The former is his owne rule, as he will answer God if he transgresse, the latter is his peoples rule for their obedience. The former power what is religious and just towards God and his people, his grave Divines, and skilfull Lawyers who are about his person are bound to explaine. The one to rehearse. Otho Fri­gensis his sentence to him or such like concerning the day of judg­ment. Cum horre dum sit omni mortali incidere in manus dei viven­tis, Regibus tamen eo erit horribilius, quo ipsi caeteris possent peccare liberius. They should be informed that Kings come from Christs owne thigh, Apoc. 19. On his thigh is written King of Kings, [Page 8] and Lord of Lords, That they come from the thigh of God, their government ought to bee paternall and easie, to use his subjects as his owne Children, as God useth man; that they ought not to weare Reheboams fingers, much lesse his Fathers loynes, but Abra­hams, yea Christs loynes more compassionate and kinde to his people under the time of Christi [...]nitie then before: That their Scepters are not given them to dish out the braines of their inno­cent subjects, but that it was derived from Davids sheep-hooke to lead his people by the waters of comfort, that the people are not to be goared with whips and Scorpions, and intolerable taxes and oppressions but to be led like sheepe by the hands of Moses and Aaron. That they are anointed with oyle, in token to make glad the hearts of all their subjects, not besmeare them ore with Vine­ger. And not only religion, but also in Policie his Councel­lours, and Lawyers are bound in Conscience to exhort him to keep within the bounds of equity and imperrall right. Catose counsell oft repeated to him. Potentes parce uti debere potestate ut diu possint They ought to advise him that few Lawes whether in Church or Common wealth are admirable preservatives both of Kings and kingdoms The government of the Iewes had not continued long under the Ceremoniall Law (the burden too heavie for them to beare) had not God watched over them with severe judgements. And if many Lawes be enacted, and those not closely united to rea­son, but only depending on the placitum of the Law-maker, if also thereby he tye both their Consciences and purses (to which the Consciences of most men are tyed) it is not morally possible, but such a kingdome by the malice of men will shortly after bee con­founded. They ought to informe that he ought to rule more Turcico His people are not mancipia, nor more valdesiano, they have possessions under him; neither [...] nor [...], without fault in the subject to be in his power: But that his sub­jects are [...], in subordination and subjection only. That a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump a little oppression makes all his subjects source, especially if the people bee aforehand seasoned with the leaven of the Pharisees, with hypocrisie, who have no­thing of Religion ssave names of faith and tread-water-grace in­spirations, markes of Election of their owne choosing, reprobating [Page 9] all besides themselves even Kings if they please them not, having the forme of godlinesse, but denying the power thereof, even the power the Kings. The power they are bound to advise the King of who are imployed about his person; Wee who have to deale with the people are bound to deliver his secundam power nifi impunitatis, who may say unto the King if he doe amisse, What doest thou, Kings are not to be questioned.

The first wee finde in this sacrilegious, forme to Moses a De­putie, no King was, Corah and his complices, and as their way was not the common way of obedient subjects, so neither was their death the common death of men. For say they could charge Mo­ses and Aaron with intrusion into their rights, must the form needs be by the way of question interrogative. Cur elevamini, there are many other wayes to have done it more meekely: and if you marke it, it is no ordinary quare lamma, but an imperious terme, umaddans, what is the reason; Ephori like, we require an account of the administration of the Common wealth. This saucy forme of questioning the Jewes kept till our Sauiours time: Is not this the Carpenters sonne. Is it lawfull to pay tribute unto Caesar, who made thee a ruler over us. It was the Donatists forme in Saint Au­gustine: Quid nobis imperatores? It is the Popes forme. It is the Presbyterians-factious form. It is the devils form of coming to Kings with insolent questions? Quid agis, we expect satisfaction not the word of a King only, for what hath bin governed amisse. Quanquam dignus sit haec contum lia, &c. Here in the Text is an an­swer as large, though not as unreasonable, and that in the same way by way of question. Who may say unto him? 1. Quis e clero? 2. Quis ex optimatibus. 3. Quis e Magistratibus regni. 4. Ques e Populo? may dare say to Him, Him annointed with oyle for su­premacie and continuance in his Throne! Him! unctum but Christum Domini, Him? Not man but God? what subject? what profane person? what mortall man may dare say unto him? What doest thou.

I. Quis e Clero

WHo of all the Church for matters of Religion or Sacriledge may question the authoritie of a King. Begin wee with our Lord and Master of Religion, our Saviour Christ, hee suffered [Page 10] not Saint Peter to resist the Magistrate: Saint Austin reprehends both Moses and Saint Peter, Contra Manich: ille fraterno, hic do­manico amore peccavit: nec pro fratre, nec pro Christo, ita (que) nec pro Christi Religione est adversus principes machinandi locus. Ba­ronius to the yeare of Christ 350. saith that in the purer times of Christians non cogitaverunt de vindicta, for saith Tertul. If malum malo dispungi, were lawfull in Christians, Nos implevimus castra urbes, oppida, &c. wee had all the Garrisons and fortes of the kingdome, una nox pauculis faculis, wee could have lighted our cruell Tyrants to their graves. Saint Basil gave up the Towne to Iulian the Apostate even when they might have defended them­selves against him, he rather by teares, and prayers, beseecheth him to spare the Christians. Famous is Saint Ambrose in his obedience to Theodosius, Suadeo rogo, hortor, admoneo, no more to a King Ego in te contumaciae animam non habeo, sed habeo timoris, and when Valentine demanded his Church, he answers the King, that by right, thou canst not take away the house of a private man (neither can be) and thinke you by your power to take away the House of God, yet marke, imperatori non done, sed non nego, tradere basilicant possum, sed pugnare non debeo, volens nunquam jus deseram co­actus repugnare non novi, dolere potero, potero gemire, aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere But excelling all these is the practice of ho­ly Samuel towards, Saul who was neither Priest nor Christian, I Sam. 15. when Sauls kingdome was rent from him, decreto di­vino, hee requested Samuel to stay and intreat God for him. No, Perjecisti Sermonem domini & projecit te dominus ne sis Rex super Israel, Saul catcheth at him and rent his mantle. Samuel replies, The Lord hath rent the kingdome of Israel from thee this day. Then saith Saul, I have sinned, honour me I pray thee before the Elders of my people: Here Samuel stayed, and returned and followed af­ter Saul.

The vices of Idolatrie of a King may not be remonstrated or de­clared down to the people, by any member of the Church of God, we must honour him before the people and Elders in Israel. Yea though he rend off our mantles from our backes, although hee de­prive us of all our revenewes, we must with St. Bernard say, if all the world should importune me, to dishonour the person of Lodo­vicus [Page 11] for his sacriledge, Ego tamen Deum timerem. Oh that our popular Clergie either would or could looke beyond Luther. They might then learn more manners towards Kings, from Irenaeus, Ter­tullian, Chrysostome, Basil and to qualifie their ignorant zeales or their malicious knowledge. Let them take one rule for all to speake honourably of the persons of KINGS from Nazian­zen, in his discourse with Constans the Arrian. He doth not pro­claime him Pharaoh, or an Idolater, or ( quod quidam fecit) That Tophet is prepared of old, and for the King. I dare not begin to re­ckon, opus erit viatico. But benignifica natura tua, Domine Au­guste, intelligit singularis & admirabilis sapientia tua, aequum vi­deri debet sanctitati tuae gloriosissime Auguste, dignantissime impera­tor, sancte Rex, loquuturus sum tecum, cum honore regni & fideitus, and these honourable termes to an Arrian. And 4. hundred Fathers of the Church spake no other language at Ariminum to an Arrian.

But the Church of God is as the Jewish Temple twice built. And as at the latter raising of it, the old men who had seene the glory of the former wept in memory of it, for I doubt not but the grave Divines in this, and other Churches, who have seene the glo­ry of the former part of the Church in the writings of the fathers, doe weepe to see it in this latter age built up indeed of specious names, and outsides of Religion, but all operative faith, devotion Chastity, Temperance, Patience, Obedience even to Kings is made a question. The Pope he lead is in the front of the latter part of the Church against the right of the Kings. Hee that in former times sware, in eo per quem reges regnant, He whom the Florentine Hi­story can informe, that his supremacie was not derived from an ob­scure place of Scripture or two. But from the Emperours remo­ving his Court from Ravenna; since which time not Kings, but Popes are Gods; and the Societie of Jesus, that slaughter-House of Kings, can change a Text for his holinesse, My sone feare thou God and the Pope, Church-men are exempt from the power of Kings saith Samuel Sa. A Iesuite: A Roman Catholike rebelling is no traytor saith the same Samuel Sa. Sexcentis versibus eorum im­puritas traloqu nemo potest, in so much as tis a proverb in Quiccar­dine it is the propertie of the Church to hate the King.

There is in these latter times another faction against the King [Page 12] who cry, but with the Donatists, Quid nobis imperatori? And as the Papists. Dominus Deus noster papa, so these Dominus Deus noster consistorium, presby [...]erianum. But that you ever sufficiently detest that kind of government, I will give you one of their phrases from the Bishop of Winchester, their Church (say they) is the house (or rather their private houses the Church) and the Common­wealth but the hangings, now the hangings must be made fit for the house not the house for the hangings. And if the King and his Princes be too high for their holy house, they must cut them shorter and with the help of an Anabaptist lay them even with the ground But we have as yet no such rebellious custome, nor I hope ever shall; nor the Churches to God. Let the Clergie for their obedience imitate holy Samuel to Saul, Eliah to Ahab, who by speciall com­mission told him, not his people of his sinnes. Imitate Jeremie in the prison, Daniel in the denne. Amos strucke through the Tem­ples, Zacharias murthered betweene the porch and the Altar, Christ our Master under Herod, Tiberius, suffering under Pontius Pilate, the Apostles under Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Domitian, Saint John in a Tubbe of Oyle, Christian Bishops for many hundred yeares under Tyrants, Idolaters, Atheists, none of all these reviled their Princes, while they were alive. Last of all remember that Saint Bernard, Fidem [...]onorum amissione, exilio, morte non pro­dam, terramincolo, quasi semper migraturus. And Saint Chrysost. In Epistola ad Cyrac: will the King or the Queene banish me. The earth is the Loras and the fulnesse thereof; will hee cutt me in pee­ces? I can remember Esay, will hee cast me into the Sea? Ionas. If into the furnance? The three Children. If to the Lions? Da­niel. If stone me? Saint Stephen. If behead mee? Saint John, Lastly (for I dare not rebell) will hee take away my whole estate and substance from mee? that of Iob, nudus exivi ex utero matris meae & nudus revertar. This for the Church: Quis e clero, if like the Primitive Fathers, may say unto the King, Quid agis? What doest thou?

2. Quis ex optimatibus regni? May say unto the KING what doest thou.

Were it not thinke you a very ungratefull sight to behold a Bull or an Vnicorne pushing at the Lion? or the Falcon to seize upon the Eagle? So, and much more unseemely were it for the Princes of the Land to question their naturall King, or to reprehend his government, otherwise then by advise and humble intreatie. And here I have no minde at this time to undervalue the persons and honours of the Princes of the Land, though but in a comparative way, in that the people will conceive all spoken absolutely, which may be delivered by way of comparison, and with the King only, pro quo caeteri, &c. And so have their lives in no honour. And their deaths in contempt and derision, a fault too generall in this kingdome at this day.

John a Prince [...]n Israel slew his Master, he had peace because he had a Commission saith Iustin Martyr. But had Zimri peace that slew his Master? David a Prince under Saul tooke up foure hund­dred men, but with no intent to oppose the person of Saul, but to preserve himselfe: And Hugo Grotius grants that to have beene lawfull under the government and law of the Iewes, which is not under the law of Christians we being bound to more perfect pati­ence and obedience in regard of better promises concerning ano­ther kingdome, so that David case is no president for us; moreo­ver there is no necessitie to thinke that David intended so much as a defensive war against Saul, but rather as the Iewes under Antio­chus to depart into the wildernesse; and defend himselfe against the wild beasts, or to take some townes of the Philistims, untill the day of the death of Saul; Thus dum timuit oleum servavit inimi­cum: All that David did when he could have cut his throate, was that he cut off the skirt of his garment, and even of this he repen­ted, percussit eum cor ejus: And it is this day a tradition amongst the Iewes saith Lyranus, that David was punished in his death re­spectively to this sinne, that no clothes could keepe him warme, quia oram vestis Sauli abscidit, in vestibus, quibus opertus erat, non calefiebat. There is ground for this in the booke of Kings: But [Page 14] whether true or no, ficta arguunt, the morall is good. Princeps non est austeroris verbiense faedandus, nec vel ultimae super fluae actio­nis corum quasi finbriam vituperando decorpere presum [...]mus. Ab­salom a Prince Davids sonne rebells with the rairest pretence, that both Religion and Justice could make for him, forsooth that neither were duely executed in the land; he would doe it, yea and that speedily, in the gates of the Citie; but marke his end, suspensus erat quasi in patibulo, he was gibbeted without a Hangman, trans­fixus tribus sagittis. 1. For disobedience to his naturall Father, 2. For opposing his naturall Soveraigne. 3. For spoyling both Church and state, under shew of Religion and Justice even when he lay with his Fathers Concubines upon the house toppe: And let all the enemies of the Lord the King bee as the young man is.

3. Quis e Magistratibus regni? May say unto the King what doest thou?

A vinculis delictorum liberi sunt reges saith Saint Ambrose, and Saint Austin, to moderate the zeale of any inferour Magistrate af­firmes, if they command any thing, it is not to command but a pre­sumption, and obedience to them, proficiet ad paenam non ad premi­um quam ad contumeliam pertinet creatoris ut contempto Domino co­lamur serai & spreto imperatore adorentur comites. No counsell or Sanedrim could lawfully question Moses; who was no King but Legatus Dei. Howsoever Philo in honour of him stiles him King. There is no question but the generall counsell of a king­dome is the most incomparable medium of preferring both King and people, that the reason of man can possibly invent: But then the power of it must be onely directive not coercive. For I would aske by what law? by the Kings? No man is bound to give a prejudi­ciall judgement against himselfe, and if any equall have no power over an equall much lesse an inferior over a superior. Lawes made by the King are not Buchanans, to tye him down under the judgement and censure of his people, but they are Organs or in­struments of the power that governeth, at once thereby to reach the whole people, not coactively to binde the legislator, for the K. In whom humane power doth reside, is a person that cannot by his owne power be controlled much leste by the power of any sub­ject; moreover every active abilitie whether in nature or in morals [Page 15] is (per se) cause or principall of alteration corruptively in another body, not in the body in the which it selfe resides. Wherefore if Divines or Lawyers affirme obligation in Princes to their laws, they teach herein only the bond of conscience. They are not Ido­nei judices, they appeale straight to God. Tibi soli peccavi. But to put an end to all questioning of Kings by any under Magistrate whatsoever; I require an answer to the Law of God in these fol­lowing questions. Who questioned Saul for slaying the Priests? did the Sanedrim? who questioned Salomon for his revolt to Ido­latry? did the Sanedrim? who questioned Ioram a Paracide, and 6. times a murtherer of his Nobles? did the Sanedrim? who Ioas for his Idolatry and slaying the High Priest did the Sanedrim? who questioned Theodosius for murthering 6000. innocent soules? who questioned Constance, Valens? Julian the Apostate? who traduced their persons and dignities? who offered them tumultuous af­fronts? unlesse wee will skill more in Religion then the former part of the Jewish and Christian world, Desinamus ogganire, & plura reges percontari. Remember that of Cicero Regum haec sunt imperia animadverte, & edicto pare, & preter rogitatum si loquare moriere. And that of the Persian King, mementote parendum vobis esse magis quam suadendum, even the fundamentall lawes of this kingdome, are by chance or good providence, plaine for the unque­stioned power of the King, by any lower Magistrate; Thomas of Walsingham speakes from a Parliament held at Lincolne, An. 130. That the King of England from their preeminence and custome at all times have not to answer before any Judge either Ecclesiasticall or civill. And Henry or Brachton cites a fundamentall of this land, that if any thing bee to bee obtained of the King (Cum breve non currat contra Regem) there is nothing left to them but intreatie and prayers, that hee would correct himselfe; which if hee please not to doe it is enough that he expect the Lord from heaven as his only revengers. De Chartis Regis facta Regum nec justiciaris nec pri­vatae personae debent disputare. For certainely if there be in a Com­mon-wealth, a reluctancie between two governments each watch­ing its advantage and prioritie, it cannot be but as Esau and Iacob strugled in the wombe; so these in the state will breed convulsion fits, each contending who shall come forth in government, one of [Page 16] them at length will come forth with scarlet strings on his hands and bloudie banners. If a body have two heads they will not ea­sily agree upon motion. To end this questioning by Magistrates wee will call Tertullian. Reges sunt super omnes homines & ante omnes Deos: And that proverb of the Rabines, Nulla Creatura Iudicat Rogem.

Quis e populo, May dare say unto the KING what doest thou.

GOd blesse this poore people, it is totus in questionibus, busie in speculations & questions concerning things that do not much concerne them, they have beene in Divinitie long agoe, as whe­ther faith onely, or good workes justifie, and such like questions, the Divines have been vehement in those disputes, and the people con­ceivd straight matter of salvation to be in the knowledge of them, then they undertake to discusse the question, in conclusion believe nothing but their own phantasies, and resolve to do no good works at all: Then whether the Common-prayer be not diservice, new English, for the new Religion, of whom it may be fitly said as Tullie of Antho [...]y, for his pientissimus, quod verbum latino ser­mone non est, id ad tuam singularem pretatem exprimendam in­ventum est: Whether kneeling at the Sacrament (that tre­mendum mysterium of the commemoration of Christs passion bee not Idolatry; whether Jesu-worship be lawfull, and that resolved to their hands, whether to worship God in entrance to his house in the presence of his Angels, saith Terullian, be not superstitione, O tempora. Whether we may repeate the Lords Prayer that Idol? O mores, whether the signe of the Crosse, used in Tertullians time be not now popery. O ridiculum! but I may not excusse the rest by name so few, come wee neerer to the Text, whether if our Clergie will not preach unto us such Pharisiacall, seditious, ig­norant, Diabolicall doctrine, wee may not chuse others in a case so concerning the destruction of our soules. And then whether if the King Himselfe will not conforme to our vaine senselesse religions, (so many now for number infinite, for qualitie so blasphemous that it is impossible for one man to know them all, and for rationall man [Page 17] to practice any of them) wee may not question his government? whether to make the question more semblable) a King in a State, bee not like a Marriner in a ship? if one will not, another must. The Marriners thought so in the last tumult, vix vera esse nisi cun­ctanter crederem, nisi his oculis videram. In sum, whether both for Religion and civil policie we may not as we have done to the Cler­gie, so to the King put up insolent questions. Quid agis? Why dost thou rule otherwise then we please to be ruled our selves. O that my head were a fountaine of teares, &c. Jerem.

1. For Religion.

We read of rebellion intended against Ahashuerus, 2 Hester ver. 21.22. No reason set downe, but in diebus illis, and what were those dayes? you might know them by the story. Ahasuerus had married Ester his Queene a vertuous woman, but of another Religion. Bigthan and Thares, Tis like were crossed in the match, but see they draw their arguments from popular heads, to interest 127. provinces in the rebellion. Ahasuerus our King matcheth with a Jew, one of a Religion hated among us, one that cares neither for Mithra nor Wamasdres, one brought in to ruinate the establish'd religion in Persia, which by our Law ought not to be altered. Thus they are zealous on the suddaine, as the fashion of the world is; This jealousie delivered downe and digested by a prevailing facti­on in the people, they forthwith (although there be no cause) are ready tumultuatim to runne up to the King with Quid agis? Why dost thou change our Religion. Good people) for so I may rheto­rically call them) if you intend a new religion take not rebellion in your way, for a thing that I will tell you in Luthers reformation, when was more need then now is, the rule of obedience was not duely observed, and there fell in or upon that reformation 100. thousand of the people, before then that you need a reformation, before you adventure upon the dangers. Barclay accuseth Luther for it, I dare not defend him, I finde him in his booke, Contra regem Angliae, very familiar and impudent to the King, stoliditas vestra, asinitas vestra, cornicula avum, aut regem nasci aut fatuum; and I wish there be no such Sheimies such felly tounged reformers [Page 18] abroad in this our pious reformation. Barclay chargeth Luther, yet farther of the death of all those people, that when he had mo­ved them to rebellion, and could not accomplish his owne ends, he was the first that moved the Magistrate to ruine and destroy them, all how true God knowes, but this the people may know is true in Policie in States men, under the larve of Religion to draw the people to one side, but if they faile in their plots and am­bitious Projects, they to preferre themselves must be the first and most active in cutting the peoples Throates whom they have stirred up.

Againe, in the Reformation after the death of so many thou­sands, and there issued forth so many Schismes from the Anarchie, that holy Melancton who loved not Poperie confessed for uni­ties sake, they must all returne to the Church of Rome againe and Prot: in his An: on Cass: Porf: speaks little lesse, better to endure one extreamitie then Twentie, better admit of one tyrannicall Religion then a hundred. And I pray God it bee not the effect, and resultance of our many Schismes and distractions in our Church at this day. To come with questions contradiction to a King, for Religion was not heard of in the Iewish Govern­ment. The Law in Deutren mie 13.6. was if thy brother or thy sonne, or thy wife, or thy friend intice thee to Idolatry, sistas cosco­ram judice, not if thy Father, or thy Husband, or thy Judge, for certaine not thy King. The manner of Balthasars deposition for abusing Gods Religion and Temple, is very remarkable by all good Subjects. None of his Subjects must dare to draw up the order no, a hand writing out of the wall from God, must declare it, and when it was there none of all the people were able to read it, so strange a thing to a subject is a deposition of his King, no nor the Astrologers nor South-sayers, no nor the Devill himselfe is able to understand it. Daniell is sent for, he only by divine re­velation is able to read, and what is it. Mene, Mene, tekell uparsin, God not the people hath numbred thy Kingdome and finished it, Joseph 17. chap. 36. Tells us of the sect of the Pharisees, who to the number of sixe thousand in zeale to their hypocriticall Religi­on, were in a covenant by themselves against Caesar, some of that number came to our Saviour with that question (for that is still [Page 19] their forme) is it lawfull to give Tribute unto Caesar. They are resolved not to doe it before, and these Sectaries proved the ruine of the Iewish Government, with whom Docter Iackson com­pares the Schismaticks, of his, and these times, growing on so fast, that both he and Sir Walter Ral. 2. Hist. spake out of propheticke wisdome, that they would hazard the ruine both of this Church and State, and they would force it into [...] and confusion. For indeed what else can bee expected, when every one may as­sume his owne Religion, and such a one as may encourage him to contradict the established government of the Church, on the one hand, and the fundamentall Lawes of the Land bee obscured on the other, and the Majestie and power of the Kings person con­temned, what remaines but we may say over this Church as Iu­gurtha over Rome. O urbem venalem & lite perituram si empto­rem invenerit.

2. For Civill Government.

As the people for Religion may not question the King, so neither for the policie and civill affaires, may they say unto him, what do­est thou. And here the people are furnished (I know not whence) with as many questions to molest the quiet of the state, as they have beene of late to disturbe the peace of the Church. And first may not his own Lawes say unto him Quid agis? Directive they may coactive, they neither may nor can; if the King be in an er­rour, he can make new lawes to defend his errour, saith Saint Au­gustine, and Sir Walter Ralleigh, reprehends Bracton though a Philachrist, for saying that a King is King by the Law, Me ito de­bet res tribuere regi quod lex attribuit ei nam lex facit ut ipse sit Rex. Whereas saith Sir Walter, Bracton ascribes this power to humane Law, hee is mist ken, for Kings are made by God, and Lawes Divine, and by humane Lawes are only declared to be King. But is he not a King by our election? Election doth not make him King although, unlesse he had beene chosen he had not beene such. As they are to say of good worke, they are via ad regnum non causa regnandi, so may wee of election, tis not the cause but the way to the kingdome, and so we find in Scripture, where the peo­ple [Page 20] chose, God made the King it is not nos, but Ego posui regem su­per Israel, and it was Gods admirable wisdome, when the world could no longer subsist under paternall Government, in that men and malice increasing in the world, paternall indulgences would not doe right respectively, every mans injuries both expresly in the Iewish government and in other States by the Law of reason doe prompt them to elect one man as their common Father, that this one man, this common Father, this King not interested in private respects might distribute Iustice impartially, and punish offen­ces in equitie: and also that the people by their owne act of electi­on might bee obliged the more to obey him, although he proved rigid and austere, as they would and ought to obey their naturall Father, which act God evermore confirmes in Heaven, this may appeare better in a similitude. Originall sinne is remitted in Bap­tisme, but not ex opere operato, yet if there bee no opus operatum there is (by vertue of the covenant ordinario, no remission of the sinne; and after opus operatum it is impossible for the Priest to re­voake the sin againe remitted in heaven. So is it in elective king­domes, and all are such naturally) the opus operatum of the people, sc. there election doth not make the King, neither is he made King without it, and after election he is so made and confirmed in Hea­ven that their act cannot ex jure be reversed againe. For election according to Gods Lawes, right, reason, is not a conditionall of ty­ing of Kings downe to the peoples ends: so as if he answer not their ends, he shall be no longer King, but it is a resignation of our naturall and private interest of revenge of all our paritie, which wee have with him, by the Law of nature into the hands of God, that he would place him super nos. It might have been said, as to Ananias and Saphira was it not your owne before such election and resignation of your rights? If now you shall demand your right againe, and question his Prerogative and immunitie, it may be said as to them, why have yee lyed to the Holy Ghost.

Secondly, what if hee breake the fundamentall Lawes of the Land, to which he is sworne. It is an old principle, Perjurium iure non solvit regnum, Salomon answers, Eccles. 10. Rex insipiens pro­det populum, not populus insipiens prodet regem, as it is now this day. Now a King by changing the Lawes, and antient govern­ment [Page 21] doth civilly destroy the kind of his people. But what if bee be not of capacitie to understand the Lawes? As if the lawes bee not to be understood: such there be in the world. But if they bee the Prophet Hosea 13. tells you, V [...] ibi terracujus Rex puer est, not [...] ubi Rex cuius terra, &c.

Thirdly, what if a Tyrant? may we not question him then? for that injuria Tyranni est in facto, usurpation of a Kingdome, not his own. Ius regis est in facti impunitate. God will reckon with Kings one day, for abusing his Image in the meanest of his subjects. But if touch him; you may Athenian like expell one Tyrant, and gaine thirtie if not more. Peritt Nero sed nullo successu, one yeare after his death proved worse than foureteene of his Tyrannte. And it was the Country-mans proverbe, I wish they had it againe, Anti­gonum effodio, wee shall have a worse master, a worse King when this is gone.

The Iewish Government was more subject to tyrannie then any Nation, then in the world or since, in that they lyed under a spec all forme of punishment, to keepe them in more perfect obe­dience: As if a private man offended, many of the people suffered death, either meritory in themselves, for their sinnes, though occa­sionaliter, from the sinne of another person, or else from Gods ab­solute dominion over the temporall life of man. But if a King trans­gressed, many thousands perished. 70. thousands dyed for Davids sinne in numbring the Souldiers, here is a strange tyrannie over the lives of the subject, and yet David was not chased too and fro in his kingdome, and the power of calling his souldiers taken out of his hand. And yet as David spake, I have sinned, let me be punished, as for this people, quid fecit? So the people may invert the words, wee have sinned and one wickedly, but for this righteous King, quid ille fecit? Daniel under the names of beasts, foretells certaine Kings degene­rating into tyrannie, according to the severall qualities and kindes of tyrannie. In the New Testament, Tell Herod the Fox. But we read not that they were deposed of their kingdomes by their sub­jects. Pharoah suffered ten plagues for his tyrannie, God suffers not rebellion to be one, but Frogs, Locust, Caterpillars, Famine, sc. Herod is destroyed not by subjects, but by Lice. It seemes God would not doe them the honour, as to perish by the hands of men, [Page 22] not by women, Abimelechs feare, not by enemies, Sauls feare, much lesse by subjects, but in simili, as they lived like beasts, so must they be consumed. Rebell not then, doe not Tyrants that to much honour expect, a while Gods potent and just revenge; he is best skild how to suit and proportion punishments to the persons of Kings, hee can take them away by some contumelious death, and can send Arm es of Locusts, Frogs, and such base Vermin to destroy them. You see how easie it is for God to take vengeance of his owne Kings. No neede of deepe plots of many yeares contri­vance, no neede of hearing of incumbrance, and distractions of your owne making, and the wrath of God to the rest, when Flies, and Lice, and Frogges in Pharaohs Chamber may serve the turne. When as God, not the people saith Calvin may turne Nebuchad­nezzar to grasse among the beasts or the fielde. And also that if notwithstanding this you will destroy your Kings, remember whose places you supply of the most contemptible vermin living, you who remaining in obedience are men, not Iewes but Christi­ans one day not men [...], Kings in Gods owne kingdome, by rebellion yee make your selves, not Angels, not Christians, not Iewes, no not men, no not beasts of the better sort, but Lo­custs, but Frogs, but starved Kine and Lice, Nay yee shall bee as the dust of which God made the Lice, and the Angell of the Lord scattering you.

It was an evill custome among the Goths to destroy their Kings upon any small displeasure, and Barclay tells us of a custome in Burguney if they yeare brought forth no Corne they removed their King contrary to the proverb. In Tacitus, malum regem & ster [...]lem annum aequo feramus. Kings ruled with Burgandians by a prophe­tique Almanacke, I pray God we in this Land prove not Burgun­dians. If our luxurious and earthly pleasures and profits be crossd by the doctrines of the learned and pious Clergie, or by the com­mands of the King though for our owne securitie and peace, if we misse any of our former delights, then Burgundian like, Terra non peperit hoc anno, nos ilaque pariamus; what novum clerum, novum, Kegem, noves leges, new nothing, but new confusion, new distracti­ons, new schismes, new incests, new (for number,) adulteries, and when after lamentable experience you shall compare the old and [Page 23] new government together, ye will say, as our Saviour did of wine, no man drinketh new Wine, but faith the old is better.

I doe not here reprehend the whole people, I have learned more Rhetorick from Quintili [...]n, I know many went along with Absa­lon to the paying of his vow who were not in the rebellion, many both menand women are like the Disciples going to Emaus whose hearts are warme within zealous for the truth, but their eyes are holden by the seditious ignorant Ministers of the times, that they cannot see the true face of Christianitie: No I speake not to these, but I speake to Burgundian Subjects, Almanacke subjects who would faine change their King with their Religion and that once a yeare at least, I speake to men ingaged to this earth, to their co­vetousnesse, to their lusts, drunkennesse, swearing, gluttonie, not in the Vniversitie onely, but in the Towne and Country; where not, who when any rate or subsedie for the publike good, either curb their customes in expensive v [...]ces, or crosse their tenacious hu­mours then Burgundian like, Terra non poperit hoc anno; Eteve­stigio, there arise under thoughts of the King, they expound his actions with disadvantage to his honour, at length come up to him boldly to him with impudent questions, Quid agis? why are wee governed otherwise, then we have a mind to be governd our selves.

Hard, to hard is the condition of Kings, if so much libertie be allowed to the Subjects, if they at their unbounded pleasure may report a religious King to be superstitious, a devout King a hypo­crite, if grave and serious austere and sullen: if pleasant dissolute: if mercifull, to be defective in spirit and valour: if severe against re­bellion, tyrannicall; if bountifull (though in policie) profuse; if provident, for his Royal posteritie covetous; if such insolent disgra­ces may passe uncensurd on the persons of Kings, then actum est de regibus, down with Kings and kingdomes, Church and State, and all union among the sons of men.

Fourthly, May we not by natures principles question and remove evill Kings from us as wee doe evill beasts, for the securitie of our estates and lives. An answer from nature shal consure the question. Drinke naturally quencheth thirst, but if you take it in a feaver it will more inflame you, then you may not consult with the infe­riour appetite, but with reason, let bloud, purge, and potion [Page 24] directed by the direction of the Physitian, not your own sense so in a Common-wealth diseased by Tyrannie; the people may not use the inferiour right of private nature, for in a Common-wealth pri­vate persons have given up their private right of punishing, they cannot punish a private person, for certaine not the King, to whom their right is resignd; what then, if the disease be hot upon us we wee must be let bloud, purge our luxuriant passions, our inflamed rebellious humour, remove each man his particular sinnes, consult with the Physition of States by prayers and teares, beseech the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who hath the hearts of Kings in his own hand, and can upon submission to himselfe and his King, either re­move him or amend him. Haec est expedissima via reprimendi tyran­nidem saith Salibur. Peccata enim delinquentium sunt vires tyran­norum.

Fifthly, may not the people say unto the King what dost thou? Or what art thou, without the people? Are not we the strength of a King? Did not Pyrrhus say to his Souldiers they were his wings, and he but the body? I desire no greater honour to be given to the King, then to be thought the body to a paire of wings, goe see if he can flye without that body, so it may be said next unto God, in the King your body yee live and move, and have your being, and for your strength, it is true, yee have enough, but for what? even to eate up one another alive, as it is in the Jewish proverb.

Sixthly, But if the people have not those rights and priviledges which they enjoyd under his predecessors, may they not come then to him with quid agis? First, all Kings in an elective kingdome by successionare pares, they enter naturally upon jus integrum, so that if any rights have passed from former Kings pejudiciall to the Crowne, jure regni, they returne againe; yet, Secondly, if any right of the subjects (for rights they have) have passed from them to former Kings in consideration of such priviledges, it is both ho­nourable and just that they be recompenced or restored back again.

Seventhly, what if he violate the conditions propounded to him and his predecessors upon his entrance to the Crown? may not the people question him for that? Not so far I believe as is commonly thought summum imperium & conditionatum, may very well bee conseniasanea, and not opposites. In the Persian kingdome hee is [Page 25] sworne to the laws of the Persians, which ought not to alter, and yet none may question him, if he violate these lawes. In the Jewish go­vernment wherein Kings were absolute and uncontroleable by their subjects, there were some cases & conditions in which jure he had no power to Iudge, as de Tribu, de pontifice, de propheta, as is plain, Ier. 38.5. yet although these conditions were delivered by God Himselfe, if the K. (as appeares in many places of the book of Kings and Chron.) did intermeddle it was not in the power of the Iewes to question or derrive him of his government. But what if it be a condition that if he breake these laws he shall ipso facto, void his kingdom, as it hath bin in some States. This will be found a most prejudiciall condition both to King and people, for wee living in this world not by mathe­maticall demonstrations, where there is no medium between rectum & [...]rium, but by morall rules, where there are many formae interjectae between rectum & curvum, vice and vertue. Some vertuous actions comming neere vice are deemed vitious, and some vicious comming mere vertue, are reckoned vertuous, it will bee very hard to know what when a King punctually keeps al his conditions, but at the plea­sure of a prevailing faction in the people, he will be judged either di­rectly or by consequence to have broken the conditions on which his kingdome depends, this kinde of government must be very doubtfull and destructive to a Common-wealth.

Lastly, may not the people come unto the King with quid agis? if he intend and threaten to destroy the whole State, as Nero and Ca­ligula, or if he intend to give up himselfe and his kingdome without the subjects consent not only in Patrocinium but in ditionem, to ano­ther Prince. In both these cases, ex hypothesi, that there hath been no rebellion in the subject, and then the cases are morally impossible; Grotius, Barclay, and Abbas, Winzelus, are of opinion that the Law of nature doth return unto the people again, both for to defend them­selves and elect againe. But the holy Abbat is of a better opinion that the Law of Nature is not alwayes to be resumd by Christians, especi­ally here where it cannot be taken, but with many inconveniences and uncertainties both from our not knowing what is a full intention and for defect of a lawfull Judge, and in regard of appeales to other Na­tions, and beside these a breach of many Lawes of Christianitie. His advice is rather than to injure our Christian profession to betake our selves to fasting and prayers, and removing from us our particular lusts [Page 26] and wickednesse provided thus for death, expect Gods providence who never failes religious men and kingdomes in this generall pre­paration for death; either God may turne him and his armies from us, put a hooke in his nostrills, or else confound his person with some sudden judgement, even Lice may consume his unnaturall bowells, or if not, non [...]cet sed purgat, Saint Ambrose hee doth but hasten us to a better kingdome, an everlasting one in heaven. Durus est Ser­mo sed tulit Iudeus, & f [...]rat Christianus.

Now in the name of Religion, in the name of the peace of the Common-wealth, and the honour of the King let me aske you these questions.

You that come up so boldly to the face of a King for the Reli­on who should clamare a facie ejus are yee sure the Religion yee question him for is the right Religion? are yee sure your inspirati­ons are not from the Devill? are yee sure your Ministers are both for learning and manners, such as in whom yee may conside in a matter that so concernes your soules? And that they doe not humour you contrary to their owne consciences, out of respect to preferment in the Church which at another time either their povertie in parts, or poverty in manners could not attaine.

Are ye sure that those that from your Pulpits declaime so fervent­ly against superstition and Idolatry, have not themselves beene leaders in that which they now condemne in others, and so cannot bee fitt Iudges what is Idolatry? Or else themselves are [...]. A­gaine are yee all of one Religion that the King may satisfie you all at once? If yee be not all of one Religion, tell us how many your are of if you can? And if you should chance to be one Religion at any time hereafter, are yee sure to continue in it? That the King may not bee troubled Burgundians like to establish a new Religion once every yeare for you. If you be not certaine of all these, as I am sure you are not, how dare yee certainely confound King, Church, and State, for an uncertaine Religion.

Again for your Policy and civill government are ye certaine of the fundamentall lawes of the land? Are ye sure ye cannot digest an Ar­bitrary government under the notion and terme of fundementall lawes? It is not an impossible thing in nature that, are ye sure, if the King be not absolute and sole judge of fundamentall lawes to be freed from avarice and ambition in the interiour Iudges and Magi­strates [Page 27] two inseprable vices in Aristocracy: Both which are satisfied in a King ambition in that he is summu, Avarice, in large estate. Are yee sure of the same Senate alwayes, and if you be extreme now time may come when others may be as extreme now time may come when others may be as extreame, and so the kingdome hurried betweene two extreames, the peoples rule being to run from one extream unto another. Lastly are ye sure if ye put any more insolent questions to the king, you may not turne a meek and pious King as ever sate upon this Throne, into a Tyrant. A learned Church as ever any in this Kingdome or else where into ignorance. Aflourishing stat as any in the Christian world into a confusion, a long and happy peace into as long and unhappy warre? a fulnesse into famine? your wives to widdowes? your children to Orphants? your selves into your grave, and you leave this nation behind you a Desolation a hissing a reproach a by word to the nations round about us.

And now God forgive mee if in this discourse I have not intended rather the liberties and rights of the subject, then the prerogative of the King, I remembred all this while what Saint August saith Tolle Iura Regum et quis potest dicere haec volla mearst, take away the Kings sole and absolute government, and who can secure his own life and estat, they must needs, be subject to a thousand alterations, I besech you therefore by your deare and many Children, by the antient Protestant Religion, by the antient and fundamentall lawes in this land for obedience King, sit down with prayers and tears, for these many distractions Saint Bernards way non scuta sed fletu reparate rem­pub: Amend your lives be charitable and kind on to another fit downe togither in peace under your vines, as people who hope here­after to fit downe in the kingdom of heaven. In a word feare God honour the King neither people nor Church nor Nobility, nor inferi­our Magistrate of the land lay unto the King by the way of rebellious contradiction, What doest thou.